HUNDREDS of CCTV cameras will now watch the streets of Swindon as a centralised network went live this week.

The final high-definition feed will be connected to the network from the new Whalebridge car park today, bringing more than 500 live feeds into a central control room at Waterside Park.

Monitored 24 hours a day by 16 paid staff, the feeds will help alert the emergency services and council officers to problems as they develop in real-time, in a bid to cut anti-social behaviour and criminal damage.

Around 100 high-definition cameras have been installed to cover the town centre, including the Fleet Street and Bridge Street areas that councillors and publicans have been calling for for some time.

Wiltshire Police, InSwindon and Swindon Council will share information on known criminals and trouble hotspots to create a more efficient security system throughout the town.

The project has been almost two years in the making and cost £100,000 to implement, the majority coming from goodwill funds from housing developers, with annual running costs of £90,000 being covered by the office of the Police and Crime Comissioner, InSwindon, and Swindon Council.

Mark Stratford, security manager for the council, said the operation would help save money across the board.

“We have got around 500 cameras scattered about the borough for community safety and anti-social behaviour,” he said.

“If you go back to when we first started, the amount of money being spent on repairs was huge.

“Now we have the cameras fitted, we have almost no damage reported in places like high rise flats and community buildings.”

Meanwhile, Mark Walker, the council’s locality lead for the town centre, said: “We have got a live board of cameras owned by the existing shopping centres looking at the public realm and have added new high-definition cameras in the town centre to supplement them.

“Over the last 12 to 18 months we have worked together with local businesses, inSwindon, and the police to bring all these things together to have the most efficient network.

“With the completion of the network this week we now have quite an innovative system. While most use fibre-optics, in Swindon we are at the forefront of using 4G. The whole thing has been an incremental process, and different parts have come online at different stages.

“If we see one major incident and act quickly upon it we can save thousands of pounds for the health budget, so savings will be made everywhere. Our security staff can react straight away if any businesses are broken into, reducing risks and hopefully working more closely with small businesses.

“We now have pro-active monitoring of all the images 24/7, with the ability of our controllers here to contact the blue light services as required in real time”

Town centre Inspector Paul Saunders welcomed the new technology, which could help prevent, detect and solve crimes.

“We are fully supportive of the new CCTV system being introduced in Swindon town centre and hope it will not only reduce the number of incidents but also provide us with another outlet to gather evidence,” he said.

Emma Faramarzi, cabinet member for housing and public safety, said the cameras were not for spying on residents but would act as a deterrent.

She said: “We don’t want to be telling people how they should or should not be living their lives, and this is more of a deterrent than anything else.#

Comments (23)

What is the point of all this increased surveillance when our courts routinely convict criminals, tell them they're facing custody under the Sentencing Guidelines... but then allow them to stroll free from court in any case?

What is the point of all this increased surveillance when our courts routinely convict criminals, tell them they're facing custody under the Sentencing Guidelines... but then allow them to stroll free from court in any case?ChannelX

Mark Walker said:
If we see one major incident and act quickly upon it we can save thousands of pounds for the health budget

No Mark, if you see the major incident, it's already happening and by the time 'blue light services' arrived, it's happened. All you've done is watch it. Where's the saving to the health budget in that?

No Mark, if businesses are broken into the risk has already become fact and your cameras and staff will reduce nothing but the amount of money in the council's coffers.

Inspector Paul Saunders said:
hope it will not only reduce the number of incidents but also provide us with another outlet to gather evidence

Cameras in the town centre deter nothing, as your frequent appeals to the public to 'help identify' amorphous blobs demonstrates time and again. I imagine we can expect more such images now. Thanks for the optimism though, but more coppers on the streets would do a better job.

Emma Faramarzi said:
this is more of a deterrent than anything else

It's a waste of public money which will deter nothing and is more of a sop than anything else. Cameras don't deter crime, Emma, they photograph it, and then only if the camera is pointing the right way at the right time.

[quote][p][bold]Mark Walker[/bold] said:
If we see one major incident and act quickly upon it we can save thousands of pounds for the health budget[/quote]
No Mark, if you see the major incident, it's already happening and by the time 'blue light services' arrived, it's happened. All you've done is watch it. Where's the saving to the health budget in that?
[quote][p][bold]Mark Walker[/bold] said:
Our security staff can react straight away if any businesses are broken into, reducing risks [/quote]
No Mark, if businesses are broken into the risk has already become fact and your cameras and staff will reduce nothing but the amount of money in the council's coffers.
[quote][p][bold]Inspector Paul Saunders[/bold] said:
hope it will not only reduce the number of incidents but also provide us with another outlet to gather evidence[/quote]
Cameras in the town centre deter nothing, as your frequent appeals to the public to 'help identify' amorphous blobs demonstrates time and again. I imagine we can expect more such images now. Thanks for the optimism though, but more coppers on the streets would do a better job.
[quote][p][bold]Emma Faramarzi[/bold] said:
this is more of a deterrent than anything else[/quote]
It's a waste of public money which will deter nothing and is more of a sop than anything else. Cameras don't deter crime, Emma, they photograph it, and then only if the camera is pointing the right way at the right time.Hmmmf

Mark Walker said:
If we see one major incident and act quickly upon it we can save thousands of pounds for the health budget

No Mark, if you see the major incident, it's already happening and by the time 'blue light services' arrived, it's happened. All you've done is watch it. Where's the saving to the health budget in that?

No Mark, if businesses are broken into the risk has already become fact and your cameras and staff will reduce nothing but the amount of money in the council's coffers.

Inspector Paul Saunders said:
hope it will not only reduce the number of incidents but also provide us with another outlet to gather evidence

Cameras in the town centre deter nothing, as your frequent appeals to the public to 'help identify' amorphous blobs demonstrates time and again. I imagine we can expect more such images now. Thanks for the optimism though, but more coppers on the streets would do a better job.

Emma Faramarzi said:
this is more of a deterrent than anything else

It's a waste of public money which will deter nothing and is more of a sop than anything else. Cameras don't deter crime, Emma, they photograph it, and then only if the camera is pointing the right way at the right time.

It is a step in the right direction, yes it wont stop crime but it will make it a lot easier, faster & cheaper to catch the degenerates.
Technology is making great advances, drones and Microchipping will be with us sooner than we think.

[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Mark Walker[/bold] said:
If we see one major incident and act quickly upon it we can save thousands of pounds for the health budget[/quote]
No Mark, if you see the major incident, it's already happening and by the time 'blue light services' arrived, it's happened. All you've done is watch it. Where's the saving to the health budget in that?
[quote][p][bold]Mark Walker[/bold] said:
Our security staff can react straight away if any businesses are broken into, reducing risks [/quote]
No Mark, if businesses are broken into the risk has already become fact and your cameras and staff will reduce nothing but the amount of money in the council's coffers.
[quote][p][bold]Inspector Paul Saunders[/bold] said:
hope it will not only reduce the number of incidents but also provide us with another outlet to gather evidence[/quote]
Cameras in the town centre deter nothing, as your frequent appeals to the public to 'help identify' amorphous blobs demonstrates time and again. I imagine we can expect more such images now. Thanks for the optimism though, but more coppers on the streets would do a better job.
[quote][p][bold]Emma Faramarzi[/bold] said:
this is more of a deterrent than anything else[/quote]
It's a waste of public money which will deter nothing and is more of a sop than anything else. Cameras don't deter crime, Emma, they photograph it, and then only if the camera is pointing the right way at the right time.[/p][/quote]It is a step in the right direction, yes it wont stop crime but it will make it a lot easier, faster & cheaper to catch the degenerates.
Technology is making great advances, drones and Microchipping will be with us sooner than we think.A.Baron-Cohen

ChannelX wrote:
What is the point of all this increased surveillance when our courts routinely convict criminals, tell them they're facing custody under the Sentencing Guidelines... but then allow them to stroll free from court in any case?

Maybe the Justice system could be made to be more accountable to the community it is supposed to serve.
I am certain judges would think twice before releasing degenerates into the community if they were to apply for re-election every 3-5 years.

[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote:
What is the point of all this increased surveillance when our courts routinely convict criminals, tell them they're facing custody under the Sentencing Guidelines... but then allow them to stroll free from court in any case?[/p][/quote]Maybe the Justice system could be made to be more accountable to the community it is supposed to serve.
I am certain judges would think twice before releasing degenerates into the community if they were to apply for re-election every 3-5 years.A.Baron-Cohen

Mark Walker said:
If we see one major incident and act quickly upon it we can save thousands of pounds for the health budget

No Mark, if you see the major incident, it's already happening and by the time 'blue light services' arrived, it's happened. All you've done is watch it. Where's the saving to the health budget in that?

No Mark, if businesses are broken into the risk has already become fact and your cameras and staff will reduce nothing but the amount of money in the council's coffers.

Inspector Paul Saunders said:
hope it will not only reduce the number of incidents but also provide us with another outlet to gather evidence

Cameras in the town centre deter nothing, as your frequent appeals to the public to 'help identify' amorphous blobs demonstrates time and again. I imagine we can expect more such images now. Thanks for the optimism though, but more coppers on the streets would do a better job.

Emma Faramarzi said:
this is more of a deterrent than anything else

It's a waste of public money which will deter nothing and is more of a sop than anything else. Cameras don't deter crime, Emma, they photograph it, and then only if the camera is pointing the right way at the right time.

Spot on.

Lets see the real operating costs. Employing people 24x7 to watch the screens does not come cheap.

Who is measuring the success of the system and what criteria is success based on?

CCTV on its own rarely is successful in ensuring a successful prosecution for criminal behaviour.

[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Mark Walker[/bold] said:
If we see one major incident and act quickly upon it we can save thousands of pounds for the health budget[/quote]
No Mark, if you see the major incident, it's already happening and by the time 'blue light services' arrived, it's happened. All you've done is watch it. Where's the saving to the health budget in that?
[quote][p][bold]Mark Walker[/bold] said:
Our security staff can react straight away if any businesses are broken into, reducing risks [/quote]
No Mark, if businesses are broken into the risk has already become fact and your cameras and staff will reduce nothing but the amount of money in the council's coffers.
[quote][p][bold]Inspector Paul Saunders[/bold] said:
hope it will not only reduce the number of incidents but also provide us with another outlet to gather evidence[/quote]
Cameras in the town centre deter nothing, as your frequent appeals to the public to 'help identify' amorphous blobs demonstrates time and again. I imagine we can expect more such images now. Thanks for the optimism though, but more coppers on the streets would do a better job.
[quote][p][bold]Emma Faramarzi[/bold] said:
this is more of a deterrent than anything else[/quote]
It's a waste of public money which will deter nothing and is more of a sop than anything else. Cameras don't deter crime, Emma, they photograph it, and then only if the camera is pointing the right way at the right time.[/p][/quote]Spot on.
Lets see the real operating costs. Employing people 24x7 to watch the screens does not come cheap.
Who is measuring the success of the system and what criteria is success based on?
CCTV on its own rarely is successful in ensuring a successful prosecution for criminal behaviour.LordAshOfTheBrake

so costs £100K to set up . . hmmm . . costs min £200K a year to run for 16 staff @ £12K a year . . so thats in the first year £300K . . someone cannot add up . . . what would you rather have . . . cameras pointing the wrong way or 10 more coppers actually doing their job and walking the beat rather than sitting in vans eating kebabs on a Friday and Saturday night . . . I am not an advocate for the police by no means, but having physical presence is the best deterrent in the world . . .

so costs £100K to set up . . hmmm . . costs min £200K a year to run for 16 staff @ £12K a year . . so thats in the first year £300K . . someone cannot add up . . . what would you rather have . . . cameras pointing the wrong way or 10 more coppers actually doing their job and walking the beat rather than sitting in vans eating kebabs on a Friday and Saturday night . . . I am not an advocate for the police by no means, but having physical presence is the best deterrent in the world . . .Wideangle852

Even NACRO have published plenty of research and evidence to show that CCTV isn't very cost effective at deterring crime - and it certainly doesn't prevent it.

While it may sometimes assist in identifying criminals, the police often know exactly who has committed most crime because the vast majority of them are repeat offencers, already well know to the police who arrest them and the judges who then allow them to stroll free from court again.

The judiciary often claim their 'hands are tied' when making their decisions, to the point where some judges have claimed a computer could do the job. If that's so, why are we paying them £200,000 and upwards per year to something anyone could do?

And if that's not the case, there are some serious questions about how they arrive at their increasingly disturbing decisions.

When we regularly read of criminals barely into their 30s with over 100 convictions and yet still they're walking around, free to commit even more crimes, it's very clear that something has gone very badly wrong.

Even NACRO have published plenty of research and evidence to show that CCTV isn't very cost effective at deterring crime - and it certainly doesn't prevent it.
While it may sometimes assist in identifying criminals, the police often know exactly who has committed most crime because the vast majority of them are repeat offencers, already well know to the police who arrest them and the judges who then allow them to stroll free from court again.
The judiciary often claim their 'hands are tied' when making their decisions, to the point where some judges have claimed a computer could do the job. If that's so, why are we paying them £200,000 and upwards per year to something anyone could do?
And if that's not the case, there are some serious questions about how they arrive at their increasingly disturbing decisions.
When we regularly read of criminals barely into their 30s with over 100 convictions and yet still they're walking around, free to commit even more crimes, it's very clear that something has gone very badly wrong.ChannelX

Mark Walker said:
If we see one major incident and act quickly upon it we can save thousands of pounds for the health budget

No Mark, if you see the major incident, it's already happening and by the time 'blue light services' arrived, it's happened. All you've done is watch it. Where's the saving to the health budget in that?

No Mark, if businesses are broken into the risk has already become fact and your cameras and staff will reduce nothing but the amount of money in the council's coffers.

Inspector Paul Saunders said:
hope it will not only reduce the number of incidents but also provide us with another outlet to gather evidence

Cameras in the town centre deter nothing, as your frequent appeals to the public to 'help identify' amorphous blobs demonstrates time and again. I imagine we can expect more such images now. Thanks for the optimism though, but more coppers on the streets would do a better job.

Emma Faramarzi said:
this is more of a deterrent than anything else

It's a waste of public money which will deter nothing and is more of a sop than anything else. Cameras don't deter crime, Emma, they photograph it, and then only if the camera is pointing the right way at the right time.

It is a step in the right direction, yes it wont stop crime but it will make it a lot easier, faster &amp; cheaper to catch the degenerates.
Technology is making great advances, drones and Microchipping will be with us sooner than we think.

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:

Technology is making great advances, drones and Microchipping will be with us sooner than we think.

And then it'll be found cost-effective to chip and monitor everyone.

Don't tell me... "if you've done nothing wrong..."

[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Mark Walker[/bold] said:
If we see one major incident and act quickly upon it we can save thousands of pounds for the health budget[/quote]
No Mark, if you see the major incident, it's already happening and by the time 'blue light services' arrived, it's happened. All you've done is watch it. Where's the saving to the health budget in that?
[quote][p][bold]Mark Walker[/bold] said:
Our security staff can react straight away if any businesses are broken into, reducing risks [/quote]
No Mark, if businesses are broken into the risk has already become fact and your cameras and staff will reduce nothing but the amount of money in the council's coffers.
[quote][p][bold]Inspector Paul Saunders[/bold] said:
hope it will not only reduce the number of incidents but also provide us with another outlet to gather evidence[/quote]
Cameras in the town centre deter nothing, as your frequent appeals to the public to 'help identify' amorphous blobs demonstrates time and again. I imagine we can expect more such images now. Thanks for the optimism though, but more coppers on the streets would do a better job.
[quote][p][bold]Emma Faramarzi[/bold] said:
this is more of a deterrent than anything else[/quote]
It's a waste of public money which will deter nothing and is more of a sop than anything else. Cameras don't deter crime, Emma, they photograph it, and then only if the camera is pointing the right way at the right time.[/p][/quote]It is a step in the right direction, yes it wont stop crime but it will make it a lot easier, faster & cheaper to catch the degenerates.
Technology is making great advances, drones and Microchipping will be with us sooner than we think.[/p][/quote]A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
[quote]Technology is making great advances, drones and Microchipping will be with us sooner than we think.[/quote]
And then it'll be found cost-effective to chip and monitor everyone.
Don't tell me... "if you've done nothing wrong..."The Zax

ChannelX wrote:
What is the point of all this increased surveillance when our courts routinely convict criminals, tell them they're facing custody under the Sentencing Guidelines... but then allow them to stroll free from court in any case?

Why don't you just ask Emma? 📷

[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote:
What is the point of all this increased surveillance when our courts routinely convict criminals, tell them they're facing custody under the Sentencing Guidelines... but then allow them to stroll free from court in any case?[/p][/quote]Why don't you just ask Emma? 📷Ollie Dognacky

So with these new high definition camera we will expect to see convictions for crimes in town go up?
IF this move is to deter anti social behavior in these areas around the drinking pits it will not work, drunks dont care if they are on camera.
IF this is to deter street crime or shop lifting it wont they dont care why should they slap on the wrist and released again. We have recently been shown a story where a man committed 100 crimes before prison??? How much did the court cost rather than wasting public money how about enforcing existing laws these token gestures are a joke.

So with these new high definition camera we will expect to see convictions for crimes in town go up?
IF this move is to deter anti social behavior in these areas around the drinking pits it will not work, drunks dont care if they are on camera.
IF this is to deter street crime or shop lifting it wont they dont care why should they slap on the wrist and released again. We have recently been shown a story where a man committed 100 crimes before prison??? How much did the court cost rather than wasting public money how about enforcing existing laws these token gestures are a joke.IfItsONtheNet

ChannelX wrote:
What is the point of all this increased surveillance when our courts routinely convict criminals, tell them they're facing custody under the Sentencing Guidelines... but then allow them to stroll free from court in any case?

Why don't you just ask Emma? 📷

Ah, Friday night, gone 9pm. I Too / Empty Car Park / Ollie Dognacky / Still About has been at the wine again.

Sad, really.

[quote][p][bold]Ollie Dognacky[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote:
What is the point of all this increased surveillance when our courts routinely convict criminals, tell them they're facing custody under the Sentencing Guidelines... but then allow them to stroll free from court in any case?[/p][/quote]Why don't you just ask Emma? 📷[/p][/quote]Ah, Friday night, gone 9pm. I Too / Empty Car Park / Ollie Dognacky / Still About has been at the wine again.
Sad, really.ChannelX

trustnopolitician wrote:
Another way of spending money ! yipee - all that is provided is blurry pics after the event - don't see where any savings come from.

No Blurry pics here either and no savings only waste, I bet they didn't see this one coming:)

Hi I was informed yesterday of a meeting that took place, with just the council and its mignons, at an eco-friendly sight in park north area.

Apparently there are a couple of these sites dotted around the town and they are owned by our illustrious leaders at the council.

Now apparently the tenants have been complaining about the excessively high costs to run these (eco-friendly, low cost houses).

It appears that several of them never even had the solar voltaic connected from the roofs and that the air-source heat pumps are not doing what it says on the can. This is because they also were not installed and commissioned correctly.

Now it appears that instead of getting the peeps who didn't do their jobs properly back to do what we the people paid them to do, that our specially trained leaders are going to rip out all the 7k each air source heat pumps and solar panels at about 8k a house out and put it all in a skip.

Sounds like another Ruddy Bluh type WI-FI fiasco looming?

It also appears that the council(sic) is now arranging for a gas supply to be put in on these sites at humungus cost, tens of thousands, and then pay for normal gas fired boilers to be fitted, also at humungouse cost.
That's the pension fund done in again, and as there will now be a shortfall, they'll have to increase the rates.

Who authorised it to be installed?
Who commissioned it and said it was working perfectly.
Who designed the installation of these eco packs.
Who authorised my/our equipment to be de-installed and thrown away.What was the total cost of this equipment, (under the freedom of information act)
Don't you just LOVE living in SWINDON.

[quote][p][bold]trustnopolitician[/bold] wrote:
Another way of spending money ! yipee - all that is provided is blurry pics after the event - don't see where any savings come from.[/p][/quote]No Blurry pics here either and no savings only waste, I bet they didn't see this one coming:)
Hi I was informed yesterday of a meeting that took place, with just the council and its mignons, at an eco-friendly sight in park north area.
Apparently there are a couple of these sites dotted around the town and they are owned by our illustrious leaders at the council.
Now apparently the tenants have been complaining about the excessively high costs to run these (eco-friendly, low cost houses).
It appears that several of them never even had the solar voltaic connected from the roofs and that the air-source heat pumps are not doing what it says on the can. This is because they also were not installed and commissioned correctly.
Now it appears that instead of getting the peeps who didn't do their jobs properly back to do what we the people paid them to do, that our specially trained leaders are going to rip out all the 7k each air source heat pumps and solar panels at about 8k a house out and put it all in a skip.
Sounds like another Ruddy Bluh type WI-FI fiasco looming?
It also appears that the council(sic) is now arranging for a gas supply to be put in on these sites at humungus cost, tens of thousands, and then pay for normal gas fired boilers to be fitted, also at humungouse cost.
That's the pension fund done in again, and as there will now be a shortfall, they'll have to increase the rates.
Who authorised it to be installed?
Who commissioned it and said it was working perfectly.
Who designed the installation of these eco packs.
Who authorised my/our equipment to be de-installed and thrown away.What was the total cost of this equipment, (under the freedom of information act)
Don't you just LOVE living in SWINDON.anotherimigrant

ChannelX wrote:
What is the point of all this increased surveillance when our courts routinely convict criminals, tell them they're facing custody under the Sentencing Guidelines... but then allow them to stroll free from court in any case?

Why don't you just ask Emma? 📷

Ah, Friday night, gone 9pm. I Too / Empty Car Park / Ollie Dognacky / Still About has been at the wine again.

Sad, really.

Maybe...
But still you could just ask Emma 👀

[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Ollie Dognacky[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote:
What is the point of all this increased surveillance when our courts routinely convict criminals, tell them they're facing custody under the Sentencing Guidelines... but then allow them to stroll free from court in any case?[/p][/quote]Why don't you just ask Emma? 📷[/p][/quote]Ah, Friday night, gone 9pm. I Too / Empty Car Park / Ollie Dognacky / Still About has been at the wine again.
Sad, really.[/p][/quote]Maybe...
But still you could just ask Emma 👀Ollie Dognacky

"with annual running costs of £90,000"? So 16 people only get £100.00 a week. that don't seem right. The minimum wage is £6.31 an hour. So the minimum wage should be £239.00 a week per person (38 hours). So 16 people is nearly £200,000 a year. something wrong with the figures there.

"with annual running costs of £90,000"? So 16 people only get £100.00 a week. that don't seem right. The minimum wage is £6.31 an hour. So the minimum wage should be £239.00 a week per person (38 hours). So 16 people is nearly £200,000 a year. something wrong with the figures there.LordCharles

trustnopolitician wrote:
Another way of spending money ! yipee - all that is provided is blurry pics after the event - don't see where any savings come from.

No Blurry pics here either and no savings only waste, I bet they didn't see this one coming:)

Hi I was informed yesterday of a meeting that took place, with just the council and its mignons, at an eco-friendly sight in park north area.

Apparently there are a couple of these sites dotted around the town and they are owned by our illustrious leaders at the council.

Now apparently the tenants have been complaining about the excessively high costs to run these (eco-friendly, low cost houses).

It appears that several of them never even had the solar voltaic connected from the roofs and that the air-source heat pumps are not doing what it says on the can. This is because they also were not installed and commissioned correctly.

Now it appears that instead of getting the peeps who didn't do their jobs properly back to do what we the people paid them to do, that our specially trained leaders are going to rip out all the 7k each air source heat pumps and solar panels at about 8k a house out and put it all in a skip.

Sounds like another Ruddy Bluh type WI-FI fiasco looming?

It also appears that the council(sic) is now arranging for a gas supply to be put in on these sites at humungus cost, tens of thousands, and then pay for normal gas fired boilers to be fitted, also at humungouse cost.
That's the pension fund done in again, and as there will now be a shortfall, they'll have to increase the rates.

Who authorised it to be installed?
Who commissioned it and said it was working perfectly.
Who designed the installation of these eco packs.
Who authorised my/our equipment to be de-installed and thrown away.What was the total cost of this equipment, (under the freedom of information act)
Don't you just LOVE living in SWINDON.

Off you go then to wherever you came from. And be quick please.

[quote][p][bold]anotherimigrant[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]trustnopolitician[/bold] wrote:
Another way of spending money ! yipee - all that is provided is blurry pics after the event - don't see where any savings come from.[/p][/quote]No Blurry pics here either and no savings only waste, I bet they didn't see this one coming:)
Hi I was informed yesterday of a meeting that took place, with just the council and its mignons, at an eco-friendly sight in park north area.
Apparently there are a couple of these sites dotted around the town and they are owned by our illustrious leaders at the council.
Now apparently the tenants have been complaining about the excessively high costs to run these (eco-friendly, low cost houses).
It appears that several of them never even had the solar voltaic connected from the roofs and that the air-source heat pumps are not doing what it says on the can. This is because they also were not installed and commissioned correctly.
Now it appears that instead of getting the peeps who didn't do their jobs properly back to do what we the people paid them to do, that our specially trained leaders are going to rip out all the 7k each air source heat pumps and solar panels at about 8k a house out and put it all in a skip.
Sounds like another Ruddy Bluh type WI-FI fiasco looming?
It also appears that the council(sic) is now arranging for a gas supply to be put in on these sites at humungus cost, tens of thousands, and then pay for normal gas fired boilers to be fitted, also at humungouse cost.
That's the pension fund done in again, and as there will now be a shortfall, they'll have to increase the rates.
Who authorised it to be installed?
Who commissioned it and said it was working perfectly.
Who designed the installation of these eco packs.
Who authorised my/our equipment to be de-installed and thrown away.What was the total cost of this equipment, (under the freedom of information act)
Don't you just LOVE living in SWINDON.[/p][/quote]Off you go then to wherever you came from. And be quick please.stfcdod